Dead and Deadly

As Holy Week approaches a disturbing trend is apparent among certain Christians towards the attempted revival of the Sacraments of the Old Law, in particular of the Passover. Many people have begun to indulge in the practice of a more or less adapted Passover Ritual the ‘Seder Meal’ on Holy Thursday or at some other time during Holy Week. Some people do this out of a desire to express solidarity with the Jewish people or understand our Jewish roots. Some seem to be working out some sort of guilt for centuries of Christian mistreatment of the Jews. These motives may be worthy but the sacraments of the Old Law objectively signify that the Messiah has not yet come. To perform them signifies the denial of Christ.

As Pius XII explains in Mystici Corporis Christi,

“…by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area — He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. ‘‘To such an extent, then,’ says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.’ On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death…”

At this point Pius XII footnotes the Decree of the Council of Florence which dogmatically defined that the rites of the Old Law cannot be followed. This definition commands the obedience of Divine and Catholic Faith. There is no room for doubt in this regard and the Council makes it quite clear that the gravely sinful nature of such acts is quite independent of whether one supposes their performance to be binding or necessary for salvation.

The Church has solemnly defined that the performance of the rites of the Old Law is mortally sinful.

“The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior … firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed so long as they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.”

Well, I would say no, because you didn’t really know etc, you don’t have to confess venial sins (in fact my favourite how-to confession book says that sometimes it’s better not to confess all your venial sins – can’t remember the exact context, but e.g. you have terrible problems with vice A, and are fighting away with it, and you have a one-off failing with a sin of vice B (e.g. you once get very very drunk in mixed company) – if you go to a priest who doesn’t know you, and confess crabbitness and getting very very drunk in mixed company, he might start giving you a long spiel about the importance of sobriety etc. Something like that. I think the chances of getting a long row from the priest about this not being a sin and the importance of not being anti-Semitic is just too high.

Confessing venial sins, which are forgiven also by a a whole lot of other things, is particularly in aid of overcoming them. The grace of the sacrament works on or attaches itself not to the sin, but to the contrition for it. It helps you overcome your faults. I don’t suppose you have a vice that makes you attend mock-Jewish Passover celebrations against your better judgement! 🙂

To my knowledge though, for someone who is not struggling with an addiction which they have been reliably informed lowers their culpability for each specific incident, getting very very drunk can be a mortal sin, unless entirely or at least mainly accidental.

I have also long been very disturbed about this practice of the seder meal. I know of examples where it has been practiced by priests who have invited memebers of their congregation to join, and also by ecumenical groups.

Surely a lot hinges on what the Florentinum means by “observe”. Presumably, it is not a mortal sin to wash one’s hands before eating–because it’s not qua law that one follows that precept. Did Paul sin when he had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3)? Clearly not. It seems to me the reason is the same: it didn’t do it because he thought it was binding as law. So what is wrong with killing paschal lambs etc. if one doesn’t do so in order to observe the law — i.e. one doesn’t by doing so imply that the law is binding? You say it is because the OT sacraments “objectively signify that the Messiah has not yet come”. But by that logic we would have to scrap large parts of the Christian liturgy: pretty much everything in Advent for example; and even the Office of Holy Saturday, since it signifies that Christ has not yet risen from the dead.

Whatever Florence means by observe it is not restricted to a belief that the act is necessary to salvation because the definition explicitly excludes that interpretation. If the connection between the act and the Old Law is purely coincidental (as with washing one’s hands) then presumably it would also not apply. The case of Paul and Timothy is not relevant as this is clearly an act which occurred between Christ’s death and the promulgation of the Gospel (as envisaged by the decree) when the law was dead but not deadly. This distinction is crucial because it is during this period (presumably 30-70 A.D. but certainly in the past in the fifteenth century) that Florence teaches the rites of the Old Law could be observed so long as they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation. The Council then explicitly states that since that time the distinction has been irrelevant. Whether one consider them binding or not one excludes oneself from salvation by observing them. No one imagines that the liturgies of Advent or Holy Week signify that Christ has not yet come, died or risen nor were they instituted in order to do so. Rather thy commemorate that time when He had not come, died and risen in thanksgiving for the fact that He did. The Mosaic rites were instituted to signify that Christ had not yet come, died or risen and this is what they continue to signify and this is why whether or not one places one’s hope in them they cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.

Yes, Florence does exclude reading “observe” as meaning “hold to be necessary for salvation”. But it does not exclude reading “observe” to mean “hold to be in some way binding as law”. The case Florence seems to be indicating is of Christian Jews who recognize that salvation comes through the grace of Christ, but still think that circumcision etc. are laws which bind them as Jews. The context of the quoted passage is Florence summarizing all the heresies that had already been condemned in the East or the West throughout Church History and reiterating the condemnation. So, the modern custom of celebrating sedar meals for educational reasons was not what Florence was intending to condemn. People who celebrate Jewish rites in order to recall what the origins of the New Law are, are doing exactly what you say the Christian liturgy does: commemorating the time when the Messiah had not come, died and risen in thanksgiving for the fact that He did.

Here’s one thing that I don’t get: why on your reading was it OK to “objectively signify that the Messiah has not yet come” in the time between the Passion and the preaching of the Gospel? Surely then of all times it was most important to unambiguously proclaim that the Old Law had passed away? At first I thought Florence was saying that it was OK to practice the OT rites as long as one had oneself not yet heard the Gospel, but that doesn’t fit with the condition “so long as they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation.” Strange. Why do you think it was OK for St. Paul to “objectively signify that the Messiah has not yet come” at the very time that he was preaching the Gospel?!

If one holds the rites of the law to be binding in sin then one holds them to be necessary for salvation by necessity of precept. I am not sure in what other sense one might suppose them to be binding. Florence explicitly states that between the crucifixion and the promulgation of the Gospel it was possible to perform these rites so long as they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation but that after that time this exception no longer applies. So again this interpretation is explicitly excluded by the definition itself.

As to context, it is undoubtedly the case that regardless of whether or not they supposed it to be necessary to salvation by precept or means any Christian who attempted to hold a ‘seder meal’ in fifteenth century Florence would have been arrested and if they were obstinate burnt at the stake.

The question of why the teaching is true is a perfectly legitimate question but understanding this point is not a precondition of accepting the teaching. As ever the Angelic Doctor provides assistance in this regard.

“The reason why the Holy Ghost did not wish the converted Jews to be debarred at once from observing the legal ceremonies, while converted heathens were forbidden to observe the rites of heathendom, was in order to show that there is a difference between these rites. For heathenish ceremonial was rejected as absolutely unlawful, and as prohibited by God for all time; whereas the legal ceremonial ceased as being fulfilled through Christ’s Passion, being instituted by God as a figure of Christ.”

The interpretation you have brought up here would also involve another difficulty. St Paul held the Old Law to bind neither in sin nor in any other sense and indeed objectively it did not bind anyone at all (in any sense) from the moment of Christ’s death and any Christian who had performed it on this basis after the crucifixion would have been in error. Therefore according to your definition of ‘observance’ – ‘to perform as binding’ St Paul never ‘observed’ the law after his conversion nor should he have done nor was he permitted to do so. But Florence precisely says that he did and was permitted to do so. Again, if your definition of ‘observance’ were correct it would have been fine for anyone to circumcise etc after the promulgation of the Gospel so long as they no more held this to be binding than St Paul did. But that would mean that the promulgation of the Gospel made no difference. This is clearly not what the Council means and makes a nonsense of what it does say.

Ok, I admit that I haven’t quite hit the right interpretation yet, but I maintain that neither have you. For, if my interpretation makes “nonsense” of Florence’s positing of a middle time between the Passion and the promulgation of the Gospel, yours makes it blasphemy. For if the mere material performance of the old rites objectively signifies that Christ has not yet come, then the Holy Spirit would in effect by giving the apostles permission to objectively deny Christ for 40 years in order to give the Jews time. So there has to be some flexibility (i.e. wiggle room) somewhere here.
The article from St. Thomas is at least helpful in that it shows what sort of thing Florence was thinking of. The reply to objection 1 is interesting. It shows that there are a number of ways in which one can outwardly “observe” the law that have to be distinguished. There is the way the Jews continue to observe it, there is the way the Apostles observed it, and then there is the way Jerome thought the Apostle’s observed it: “[Jerome thinks the Apostles] never observed the legal ceremonies in real earnest; but only by a kind of pious pretense, lest, to wit, they should scandalize the Jews and hinder their conversion. This pretense, however, is to be understood, not as though they did not in reality perform those actions, but in the sense that they performed them without the mind to observe the ceremonies of the Law: thus a man might cut away his foreskin for health’s sake, not with the intention of observing legal circumcision.”
Thomas (and apparently Florence) rejects Jerome’s solution. But that means that according to Thomas the “observance” of the law that the Apostles practiced in the middle time (betwixt Passion and promulgation of the Gospel) was more than a mere outwardly doing what the law says to do. So “observe” in Florence does seem to mean more than merely doing what the law says. So it is at least theoretically possible that I can still find a way of doing the ceremonies of the law in the time after the promulgation of the Gospel in such a way as not to fall under the prohibition of Florence. I’m not exactly sure what more to say than that, but perhaps a passage from B XIV’s “Ex quo” will help (yes, I’ve been googling): “If a man should perform acts for a different end and purpose (even with the intention of worship and as religious ceremonies), not in the spirit of that Law nor on the basis of it, but either from personal decision, from human custom, or on the instruction of the Church, he would not sin, nor could he be said to judaize. So when a man does something in the Church which resembles the ceremonies of the old Law, he must not always be said to judaize.” Admittedly, Ex quo is addressing a different question from things like sedar meals (namely, the question of whether it’s OK that we Latins use unleavened bread at Mass), but it seems like one could extend the principle without doing violence to Florence.
At least one distinguished canonist seems to think so:

Obviously it is inadmissible accuse St Paul and the Council of Florence of blasphemy. In the period identified as the promulgation of the Gospel public revelation had not ended and the Temple had not yet been destroyed. So in the secondary sense of ‘New Law’, i.e. the written inspired texts of the New Testament, the New Law had not been fully transmitted. There was therefore an objective sense in which prior to the death of the last Apostle not everything contained in the Old Law had been fulfilled. Precisely in that the New Law was fully enacted but not yet fully promulgated. Insofar as this was the case it remained permissible to ‘observe’ (Florence’s word) the Old Law so long as it was believed to be ‘in no way’ necessary for salvation. When the promulgation was complete this possibility ceased.

As you say Jerome’s interpretation is rejected by Augustine, Thomas and the Council of Florence. Indeed, the verbal parallels between Thomas’s article and the Florentine definition suggest it was before the fathers when they formulated the definition.

The fact that the purely coincidental performance of the physical act of circumcision does not constitute ‘observance’ is irrelevant. The actions performed at a ‘seder meal’ are performed because they are the actions commanded by Moses regardless of whether the participants hold that command to bind them.

I was once contacted by someone concerned about an imminent ‘seder meal’ and whether this would constitute an observance of the Old Law. Arguments reminiscent of Jerome’s position were advanced to the effect that this was more of an educational ‘re-enactment’ or ‘performance’ than an observance. I suggested that there was an easy way to discover whether they intended to observe the Old Law or not. Ask them to use pork instead of lamb. They refused. That seems to settle the matter.

That makes sense–the part about the Old Law not being perfectly fulfilled until the new was promulgated. So the bit about the Apostle’s doesn’t help me wriggle out of this.

Still, I wouldn’t agree that “the fact that the purely coincidental performance of the physical act of circumcision does not constitute ‘observance’ is irrelevant”; since it at least shows that one has to clarify what exactly does constitute observance. And, following the principle enunciated in “Ex Quo”, it is at least theoretically possible that the Church will come to judge that Christian seder celebrations do not fall under the condemnation of Florence. I linked an interview with Cardinal Burke above where he defends the practice. Here is another segment from the same interview where he explicitly addresses Florence:

Your argument above that “any Christian who attempted to hold a ‘seder meal’ in fifteenth century Florence would have been arrested and if they were obstinate burnt at the stake”, certainly has some force, but it also has it’s limits. In arguing about the correct interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae, to take an analogous case, people often argue that the fact that bishops forced the Franco regime in Spain to change the laws on non-Catholic worship, on the basis of DH, proves that Dignitatis Humanae ought to be read to absolutely exclude the kind of thing that Franco was doing; but this is to overlook the fact that magisterial documents have to be read in the light of all other magisterial documents, not just in the light of how authorities at the time implemented them.

Would you concede that it is at least possible to conceive that the Church will come up with an interpretation of Florence that allows for Christian seder meals? Surely it does not seem much more difficult than reconciling certain passages of Lumen Gentium with Florence’s teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

How do you think the Holy See would respond if today a bishop were to send in the following dubitum: “Whether the custom among certain Christians of celebrating seder meals in order to commemorate the time before the coming of Christ and give thanks for his coming is to be rejected on the basis of the Decree of the C. of Fl. against the Jocobites.” As for me, I have no doubt that the competent Congregation would reply: “Negative”.

You have already conceded that a number of the factual presuppositions of the Cardinal’s comments are false.

Elements of the Old Law re-promulgated by Christ or the Apostles as elements of the New are obviously not covered by what Florence says because they are performed at the command of Christ not because they were commanded by Moses. Likewise if I happen to wash my hands (or even use incense and psalms at Mass) the fact that the Law of Moses required this is purely coincidental. The participants in ‘passover seders’ whether or not they think they are bound to do so perform these rites because Moses commanded them. This is clearly what Florence forbids.

I don’t think the ‘Vatican II said lots of vague thing therefore all bets are off’ argument is worth pursuing. Nor do I believe in hypothetical questions about what would happen if the private theological opinions cherished by the employees of this or that Roman Congregation were given free rein. Principally this is because Christ instituted an infallible church certain of whose officers are negatively guaranteed against error in the actual (not hypothetical) exercise of their supreme authority, not a pantheistic kirkengeist fumbling its way to an ever more pickwikian interpretation of the deposit of faith.

Obviously hypothetical judgements of the Church can’t be used to over-trump actual infallible judgements. But the question is how to interpret Florence’s infallible judgement, and particularly how to apply it to a case which Florence did not anticipate. You yourself brought up an hypothetical case in order to help understand what Florence says, namely, “any Christian who attempted to hold a ‘seder meal’ in fifteenth century Florence would have been arrested and if they were obstinate burnt at the stake”. As I said, I think that argument has a certain force, but it has limits as well. Those limits apply equally to my hypothetical case, but that doesn’t make it any less helpful in illustrating this point: it is not certain that the Christian seders currently in vogue fall under Florence’s condemnation.

Nor do I think that you can so easily dismiss Ex Quo’s principle as irrelevant. The Liturgy incorporates certain elements of the Old Law (elements not re-promulgated as part of the New Law by Christ or the Apostle’s) for the precise reason that people celebrate seder meals– because they are apt to commemorate salvation history. Witness e.g. the offertory prays in the Novus Ordo, which were chosen precisely because of there place in the Jewish seder meal.

Whatever weaknesses Cardinal Burke’s interview may have, it also enunciates some important interpretive principles. For example, that one must be cautious in applying Church teachings from a completely different historical context to new situations.

I also think it’s a bit rich your invoking Pickwick. Isn’t your own interpretation a perfect example of Fuzbuzianism? Just as Fuzbuz “proves” that Pickwick has made an offer of marriage by looking at the “objective” meaning of his words, abstracting from just those circumstances which give his words a different meaning, so you “prove” that people are “objectively” denying Christ who are in fact doing exactly the opposite: affirming their faith in Christ through the commemoration of what He has done for us. Your whole argument is basically a more subtle version of: “Gentlemen, what does this mean? … Chops! Gracious heavens! and tomato sauce!” (Substituting “lamb” for chops 🙂

But the example I gave was not hypothetical many people in the fifteenth century who practiced the Christian religion were also privately practicing some of the rites of the Old Law and many of them were arrested put on trial and executed. So far as I know there is no known instance of anyone being told that this would have been fine so long as they did not hold these rites to be binding. Indeed, in some sense they must have held precisely this as they were not practicing all of the rites to which they would have been bound were they binding. So the historical context is not so very different. In fact it is rather close. Besides, the definition does not tie itself to any concrete question but draws from St Thomas’s general teaching to give its own general teaching. Furthermore St Paul’s own teaching is very clear in regard to Christians of Gentile origin the only (temporary) exception was in regard to Christians who were ethnically Jewish.

As to the Jewish offertory prayers in the Novus Ordo these are most unfortunate but as such they are not commanded in the Old Law so using them cannot be seen as an observance. For the same reason (though I have not investigated the matter at length) it seems to me a case could be made that Christians might celebrate Purim as it is not commanded by the Old Law.

The problem in the 15th C. (at least in Spain) was a problem of false converts who became Christians for reasons of convenience, but continued the traditions of the fathers on the sly, because they didn’t really believe the Christian religion. So it was a completely different situation than the one we have now.

If a case can be made for Purim, as being only a human tradition useful for recalling salvation history, then it seems that a case can be made for doing other things that recall salvation history as long as one does them qua human tradition and not qua law. That’s exactly the argument that David Moss makes in the Burke interview, citing Ex Quo for the key distinction.

But these people did not concede that they were false converts. The prosecutions continued into subsequent generations. The possibility of performing the law as non-binding was never offered or accepted as an excuse. In the relevant sense the application of the Dogma underlines the obvious meaning of the definition.

Ex Quo is so unhelpful for Mr Moss’s argument I wonder whether he read it. It clearly covers Purim and equally clearly excludes the Passover Seder. Benedict XIV explicitly reiterates that “the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel”.

Benedict XIV also makes a very clear distinction between those elements of pre-Incarnational ritual practice that may be adapted by the Church and those which may not. He says,

“the Church of Christ has the power of renewing the obligation to observe some of the old precepts for just and serious reasons, despite their abrogation by the new Law. However, precepts whose main function was to foreshadow the coming Messiah should not be restored”

This absolutely excludes the Passover Seder and upon precisely the same principle as the Council of Florence.